oversight would be the source of more evil than could be easily conceived. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL said, he would give early notice of what he intended to propose on the report. He would move an additional clause to meet the case of lords of manors. [Sir JOHN HANMER: That will not meet the case.] He would only remark at present, that if an owner's title were patent and on the deeds, his case would be provided for by the Bill; if it were latent and not upon the deeds, he must know his title better than anybody else, and might protect himself by entering a caveat. MR. AYRTON said, that in some cases the fee of the surface was in the hands of one person and the fee of the minerals in the hands of another. The two were distinct; but the Bill seemed 40 treat the property in minerals as ancillary to the property on the surface. He MR. WALPOLE said, he was very anxious that the Bill should succeed. did not think a greater boon could be conferred on landed proprietors than to give them the means of obtaining an indefeasible title. If, however, the measure imposed upon those who were unwilling to avail themselves of it the necessity for employing a professional gentleman and of incurring expenses in order to put themselves in as good a position as those who had taken advantage of its provisions, he believed the Bill would break down, and that Parliament would have again to be applied to. House resumed. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL said, he should not object to the clause, while he at the same time reserved to himself the right of considering whether it was one which it would be desirable should pass into a law eventually. If so, it might be expedient to introduce such a clause into the other Bills on the same subject. Clause agreed to. House resumed. Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered on Monday next. Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members not being present, House adjourned at Eight o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, Friday, June 27, 1862. MINUTES. PUBLIC BILLS.-2 Liverpool Fire Prevention Acts Amendment; Elections (Ireland); Elections for Counties (Ireland); Bleaching and Dyeing Works Act Amend. ment; Unlawful Oaths (Ireland) Act Continuance. 3 Saint Thomas's Hospital; Landed Property Improvement (Ireland) Act Amendment; New Zealand; Artillery Ranges. EAST GLOUCESTERSHIRE RAILWAY BILL. CONTEMPT OF THIS HOUSE. The Order of the Day being read for Committee report Progress; to sit again the Attendance of William Isaacs, Clerk on Monday next. DECLARATION OF TITLE BILL. [BILL NO. 102.] COMMITTEE. Clauses, as amended, agreed to. MR. ROLT said, he wished to move a clause providing a register in which any person claiming any estate, or interest in land, or any encumbrance thereon, should be at liberty to enter his name and address, with the name of the county, parish, and township in which such land was situated, in such form as the Chancellor should order; and that after such entry the Court should not make an order under the Act unless notice of the application had been given to the person who should have made the entry. to Mr. Boodle, Solicitor at Cheltenham, and John Preston, Town Crier at Cheltenham, at the Bar of this House, at Four o'clock, in reference to their Conduct with regard to the Signatures to the Petition of Barbara Robinson and others of Cheltenham, presented on the 22nd of May last, praying to be heard by Counsel against the "East Gloucestershire Railway Bill," the Yeoman Usher informed the House that they were in attendance: They were called in. THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords, In consequence of what took place before the Committee on the East Gloucestershire Railway Bill, of which Committee I was Chairman, the Committee went into certain points with regard to the mode in which signatures had been obtained to a Petition against that project; and in consequence of the evidence which was then brought before us that the two persons at the Bar had obtained signatures to the Petition by representing that it was in favour of the Bill, the Committee unanimously came to the decision that the names so obtained to that Petition should be struck off the Petition, and that the conduct of the two persons who had obtained them should be reported to the House. I therefore beg to move that the shorthand writer be examined upon the evidence which he took down on that occasion. Then Francis Neate Walsh, the Shorthand Writer who took the Evidence given by the said William Isaacs and John Preston before the Select Committee of this House on the said Petition, was sworn to the Correctness of the Transcript of the said Evidence given before the said Select Committee; and having identified the said William Isaacs and John Preston, the Evidence was read to them, and they were examined as follows: THE LORD CHANCELLOR: William Isaacs and John Preston, it has been proved to the satisfaction of a Committee of this House sitting on the East Gloucestershire Railway Bill, and also to the satisfaction of the House, that you have obtained signatures to a Petition against that Bill by representing that the Petition was in favour of it. Have you any explanation to give of your conduct? PRESTON: Yes my Lord. THE LORD CHANCELLOR: explanation do you give? What PRESTON replied, that he was employed to obtain signatures to the Petition on the understanding that there was no objection to the Bill, but only to the clause providing that the line should be carried through the town of Cheltenham by means of tunnel. a ISAACS said, that he was totally ignorant of the nature of the Petition, except that he was told that it was to oppose the line passing through the town in a tunnel. THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If you were ignorant of the contents of the Petition, how came you to make the statement you did? PRESTON: I had heard that the Bill had passed, and that the only object of the Petition was to oppose the line passing through the town. LORD WENSLEYDALE: Who instructed you to obtain these signatures? PRESTON: Mr. Linwood, the attorney. THE LORD CHANCELLOR: How came you to say the Petition was in favour of the line? Both PRESTON and ISAACs denied that they had done so. THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Did you see the printed copy of the Petition? Both admitted they did, and that they could read and write. THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Who told you the Bill had passed? The clerk to Mr. Linwood. LORD BROUGHAM: Did you do any thing except at the desire of Mr. Lin wood's clerk? had acted entirely according to the instrucBoth PRESTON and ISAACS said that they tions of the clerk to Mr. Linwood. ISAACS added that he had seen Mr. Linwood, whose only instructions were that they should get signatures-good names. trouble; he was engaged during portions He was paid £1 78. 6d. for his of six or seven days, and there was no agreement as to the payment being according to numbers. THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Did Mr. Linwood direct you to make any statement about the tunnel? PRESTON: The clerk told us that. He said there was no objection to the railway, only to the tunnel. THE LORD CHANCELLOR asked Isaacs from whom he received his instructions. ISAACS: Partly from Linwood, and partly from his clerk. The examination was pursued at considerable length, but nothing new was elicited. The said William Isaacs and John Preston were then ordered to withdraw. My THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Lords, this is a matter which, I think your Lordships will agree with me, is a most serious matter, as it affects public interests, and as it affects your Lordships' proceedings and the privileges of this House. From reading the evidence before the Committee there can be no doubt that the men now at the Bar of your Lordships' House were, at all events, the instruments in making representations false in a most material point with regard to the contents and object of the Petition. When I speak of them as instruments, it must be at the same time recollected that, upon their own confession, it appears that each had in his hand a printed paper, by which the falsehood of the representations would have been apparent to every one who could read. They admit they were perfectly able to understand the contents of that paper; but they have stated, and the same statement was made before the Committee, that they received directions to do what they had done from other persons, that they did not concern themselves with the contents of that Petition, but that they accepted those directions and proceeded to execute them. The true object of your Lordships must therefore be to ascertain from whom, and with what motive, and under what circumstances those directions were given to these persons. What, therefore, I would suggest to your Lordships to adopt is-and I move accordingly-at present to discharge these men, ordering them to attend again at some future day, and that those two persons, and also the employer and his clerk, be ordered to attend at the Bar at the same time. Ordered, That Robert Sole Lingwood, Solicitor at Cheltenham, and Charles William Maisey, Clerk to said Robert Sole Lingwood, do attend at the Bar of this House, on Friday next, at Four o'clock, in reference to their Conduct with regard to the Signatures to the Petition of Barbara Robinson and others, of Cheltenham, presented on the 22nd of May last, praying to be heard by Counsel against the "East Gloucestershire Railway Bill.” RED SEA AND INDIA TELEGRAPH REPORT. Amendments reported (according to Order). On Question that the Amendments be agreed to, LORD REDESDALE said, that as this measure stood, he believed there would be great legal difficulty in interpreting its terms. It was very desirable the agrcement between the Government and the Company should be put into a clearer form. THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN had expected that the precedent of a former measure of this kind would have been folLORD BROUGHAM: I quite agree lowed in this instance, and that the conwith my noble and learned Friend that tract between the Treasury and the Telethis offence is a very grave one. I quite graph Company would have been inserted agree that enough appears in the state- in a schedule appended to the Bill. That, ment of both these persons to show that however, was not the case, and instead of they have done enough to render thema contract they had a very different thing selves liable to punishment; and enough—namely, the "Heads of an Arrangeto show that it is very probable they were ment," which he was informed by legal set on by others. At any rate, we ought authorities would be binding upon the to inquire of others how far that statement is borne out. I therefore wholly agree with my noble and learned Friend in the course he has taken. It is not merely in this matter of Private Bills that very grave frauds are committed. Signatures to petitions, I have constantly experienced, are obtained from persons who are utterly ignorant of the contents of the paper to which they are called upon to sign their names. This is a practice which strikes at the root of the efficiency of your Lordships' proceedings. THE DUKE OF RICHMOND thought it right to say, that having heard the statement of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, he was prepared to acquiesce in the Motion he had made, which he thought was the best course that could be taken under the circumstances. Then the said William Isaacs and John Preston were ordered to attend again on Friday next, at Four o'clock. Treasury, but not equally binding upon the Company. Nearly £2,000,000 of public money were involved in this matter, and, surely, such a sum ought not to be granted away without a regular contract being produced between the Government on the one side and the Telegraph Company on the other. THE DUKE OF ARGYLL said, he had been in great hopes that the arrangements which had been made with respect to this Bill would have satisfied noble Lords who had objected to its form on previous occasions. The Government had bound themselves under the agreement of 1858 to pay 4 per cent upon the whole amount of capital bonâ fide expended for the purpose of the Company's undertaking; while the Company, on the other hand, having once completed their line, were under no obligation to keep it in working order. Accordingly, after the expenditure of their capital, the Company, having failed in working the line, were not inclined to throw good money after bad, and had been attended with considerable success. They had restored the cable up to a point called Djubal on the Red Sea, whence they were able to send messages and anticipate by some hours the advices from India, receiving already for this service a small amount of revenue. He submitted that the form of the Bill was not open to objection; that in substance it was the best arrangement which could be made; and he hoped, that as the time for carrying out the arrangement was short, their Lordships would pass the Bill without further delay; otherwise the faith of the Government would be seriously compromised. No Vote had been taken for the annuities due to the shareholders, it being expected that the Bill would shortly become law; and unless it quickly passed, there would not be time for the Bank of England to make arrangements for paying the money at the proper period. according to the terms of the agreement they were entitled to receive their dividends, and sit still. Under these circumstances Government might have paid the £800,000 and taken the cable into their own hands. But after full consideration, they determined against that course, thinking that any attempt on their part to raise the cable would involve a risk which they were not justified in incurring. In this state of things a new Company came forward, and said, "We don't ask for any money or for any guarantee; but we ask you to transfer the property in the cable by Act of Parliament from the old Company to us, and allow us to try and restore it. If we succeed, we ask you to allow us to derive the profits from the cable up to 25 per cent upon our outlay, and above that return the profits will go to reimburse the Government." As this proposal did not involve the risk of a single farthing to the Government, they de- THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN undertermined to accept it, and thus, as they stood the Bill to involve the payment of an thought, to make the best of a bad annuity by the Government for forty-six bargain; and he submitted that next to years of £36,000, which would amount to the folly of throwing £800,000 to the the sum he had before stated. Besides bottom of the sea, would have been the this, it appeared in the "Heads of Arfolly of allowing £800,000 to remain at the rangement," in the schedule, that in the bottom of the sea when you could get any- event of the Company's failure to restore body to try and fish it up for you. The the line or maintain it in working order, transfer of the property in the cable from the Commissioners of the Treasury were to the old Company to the new one was not have power to take it into their own hands complete until the passing of this Bill. It again on repaying the capital actually exwas true that an agreement to that effect pended by the new Company. There was had been come to between the two Com- therefore an annuity payable of 4 per panies; but he believed that, legally, the cent on £250,000 additional capital, which property in the cable remained in the old might or might not be expended by the Company till an Act of Parliament was new Company. It was obvious that the passed sanctioning its transfer to the new. country was exposed to new and unknown As to the new arrangement with the old liabilities in this matter. The directors of Company, it was completely set forth in the new Company were pretty nearly the the Bill. There was the transfer of the same as the directors of the old Company, property, and in exchange for it the con- and from the manner in which they had version of an annual payment of interest behaved in the past he had no great coninto an annuity which would be more nego-fidence to repose in their future arrangetiable. The noble Earl doubted whether ments. The contract ought certainly to that agreement would be binding upon the be stated in the Bill. The Treasury Company, but he (the Duke of Argyll) should not spend money without entering apprehended that as it was identical with into a legal contract. the prospectus of the new Company, and as every shareholder had therefore had his attention directed to it, a court of law would enforce its observance. With regard to the performance of the conditions by the new Company, it was directly their interest to raise the cable; for unless they did so, they would not get a farthing of return upon their expenditure. He was glad to learn that their operations so far VOL. CLXVII. [THIRD SERIES.] THE LORD CHANCELLOR considered that they were under this Bill making the best of a bad bargain. The question had been raised on the failure of the old Company, whether the Government, having paid so large a sum of money, acquired any lien upon the property of the old Company. He thought they did not. The House of Commons had appointed a Committee on the subject, and they came to 20 the conclusion-it was their conclusion entirely that the old Company was entitled to have from the Government a guarantee for their dividend. That guarantee the old Act of Parliament gave effect to; but that guarantee, and the agreement with Government on which it was founded, did not entitle the Government to any lieu on the property of the old Company. Well, then, the property was left in the old Company in a manner in which it could be applied to no useful purpose. Accordingly, an arrangement had been made with a new Company. The objection of the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) was founded on this; and that objection, in his opinion, was, to a certain extent, rightly founded. The noble Earl said that there was no contract between the Government and the Companies set out in the Bill. It was, however, set out in the schedule. The noble Earl then asked where was the obligation thrown on the new Company to perform the conditions they had entered into? He (the Lord Chancellor) certainly thought the Bill deficient in that respect, and he should therefore suggest to his noble Friend who had charge of the Bill at the end of the first section, which concluded thus-"that the agreement of the 18th November, 1858, and all covenants and conditions contained therein, shall be deemed at an end," to add these words-"but the New Company shall be bound to fulfil the agreement contained in the Schedule to this Act." He thought the New Company would then be bound and rendered capable in law of performing the agreement. Words added. LORD OVERSTONE thought the Government in this case were perfectly right, and were proceeding upon an arrangement founded upon a reasonable consideration, and with a proper regard to the public interests. KERTCH AND YENIKALE-PRIZE MONEY. MOTION FOR CORRESPONDENCE. THE EARL OF HARDWICKE rose to call the attention of the House to a correspondence between the Board of Admiralty and the Treasury, &c., on the subject of Prize Money claimed by the army and navy for the capture of Kertch, &c. The noble Earl said, the circumstances of the capture were described in the original despatch of Sir Edmund Lyons, from which it appeared that a number of British ships and an equal number of French arrived before Kertch on the Queen's birthday, and landed a body of troops, while some light steamers aided them in their operations. The enemy, taken by surprise, blew up his fortifications, mounting fifty guns. The expedition returned, after having succeeded in destroying three steamers and some heavily-armed vessels, besides large stores of provisions. By that operation the control of the Sea of Azof was obtained. Besides the property destroyed, other property was captured, including seventeen thousand tons of coal, and fifty guns, which latter were used before Sebastopol. The coals were worth a considerable sum, and they were used for the service of the fleet. In addition there were captured smelting works, a steam factory, a corn-mill, anchors, machinery, and metals of various kinds. The steam machinery was taken to Gibraltar by the advice of Sir John Hay, then a captain in the fleet, and it was still in use there. He was told that it was a common observation for soldiers and sailors to make when passing the dockyard, "That is what we have been robbed of." The Act of Parliament regulating the distribution of prize-money provided for a case of this nature. The officers, upon arriving in England, made their claims, but not until EARL GREY admitted there was no ob- after considerable delay, which had been jection in substance to the agreement. The occasioned by no fault of theirs. They Bill was at first objectionable from the were told that a grant of public money vague manner in which it was drawn; but would be given, equal in value to the proin its amended shape, and with the addi-perty taken; and that if such grant were tion proposed by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, it was substantially unobjectionable. He, however, still thought that it would have been better if there had been a clear contract made with the Company and set forth in the Bill. Motion agreed to; a further Amendment made; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next. not made, they could establish their rights in a Prize Court. The Correspondence to which he wished to direct their Lordships' attention showed that the reason why the officers had not succeeded in their claims was, that there was a difference of opinion between the Admiralty and the Treasury upon the subject. As the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty was present, |